The strategic rationale given for release of this site from the Green Belt is the economic importance of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC). The prospectus submitted by the principal occupants of the CBC, ‘Vision 2050’, sets out the scale and benefits of colocation between the NHS, the University of Cambridge, the Medical Research Council and the private sector. It argues that this dynamic biomedical complex is of local, regional and national importance for the production of both health and wealth. These arguments are well-rehearsed and there is abundant evidence available to support them. The basic premise that the CBC is a national asset is not, in any way, challenged here.
That said, there are two aspects of this prospectus that are problematic, and that need be critically examined as part of the Local Plan process. First, although Vision 2050 articulates the importance of the interaction between the various sectors represented on the CBC, it disregards the need to maintain a balance between these sectors. Second, it is misleading about the prospects for NHS hospital renewal on the campus. These two issues are closely interlinked.
An appropriate balance between investment in hospital renewal and growth is needed for two reasons. First, and most obviously, the CBC is driving employment growth and consequential population growth. The most obvious example of this is Astra Zeneca, which will be creating or relocating an additional 2,000 jobs on the campus. These people, and their families, will add to existing demands on local health infrastructure, including hospital services. Second, the success of the CBC biomedical complex relies on clinical research as well as laboratory research. The co-location of these two types of research is critical for the knowledge and wealth production dynamics of the CBC, as has been recognised since the original ‘2020 Vision’ first published in 1999. Clinical research requires a well-founded hospital, with sufficient space, staff and supporting infrastructure to deliver this strand of the ‘tripartite mission’ (i.e. clinical care, clinical research and clinical education).
At present, what we see on the CBC is a growing imbalance between the facilities available to the research partners on the site and the public hospital. To put this in stark terms, gleaming new research facilities surround the decaying and increasingly overcrowded NHS facilities at the heart of the campus. Land zoned for Addenbrooke’s hospital development for over a decade still stands empty (apart from some Covid response modular buildings,) providing a constant reminder of how little progress has been made in addressing this deficit. Only the new Royal Papworth, which is under separate management, provides a welcome contrast. The growth and renewal of Addenbrooke’s was at the heart of 2020 Vision, yet this aspect of the original strategy has been least advanced least over the past decade.
Vision 2050 is optimistic in its statements about this situation, stating that ‘soon, building will commence on a new cancer hospital and a new children’s hospital on site’. These claims need to be critically examined in the context of the Government’s programme for ‘40 new hospitals’. Well-informed commentators are remarking on the severe inadequacy of the sum set aside, £3.8 billion, to fund this ‘Health Infrastructure Programme’ (HIP). NHS Providers estimates the true sum required to be at least £20 million. In addition, NHS hospitals face a total ‘backlog maintenance’ bill of £9 million, of which more than half is ‘high risk’ or ‘significant risk’. Cambridge University Health Partners, which runs Addenbrooke’s and The Rosie hospitals has backlog maintenance reported at £104 million in 2020. The new Cambridge cancer hospital is in ‘HIP 2’, which is a tranche of schemes due to open between 2025 and 2030. The only funding so far set aside for schemes in HIP 2 is an undisclosed amount of ‘seed funding’. The children’s hospital, which has been under discussion for around 30 years, is not even included in HIP, and its status remains unclear. The use of the word ‘soon’ in this context is certainly very optimistic, and potentially misleading.
In these circumstances, it is unfortunate that Addenbrooke’s hospital management has chosen to align itself in an uncritical way with proposals for further development of the CBC, even to the extent of supporting those for large areas of land south of the campus and between the M11, Addenbrookes Road and the A1301 (thankfully, these proposals have not made their way into the draft Local Plan). Instead of supporting developer-led proposals that will further stoke up demands on the hospital, to the disbenefit of all local people, the hospital should be vigorously pursuing the argument that some of the planning gain from further CBC development must be ringfenced for hospital renewal. This must be in addition to reliance on HIP, prospects for which appear increasingly uncertain. The GCP Local Plan process offers an exceptional opportunity for the sub-region to lead the way in developing such an alternative approach.